Five years later, the dust hasn't really settled. You’d think a half-decade would be enough time for a country to agree on what it saw with its own eyes, but here we are in 2026, and the question was Jan 6 an insurrection still triggers arguments at Thanksgiving tables and in federal courtrooms alike.
It’s messy. Honestly, it’s beyond messy.
To some, it was a guided tour that got a little rowdy. To others, it was the closest the United States has ever come to a total collapse of the constitutional order. But when you strip away the cable news shouting matches and look at the actual legal framework—the dry, boring stuff in the U.S. Code—the answer becomes less about your political "vibes" and more about how we define a "violent uprising against authority."
The Legal High Wire: 18 U.S.C. § 2383
If you want to know if something is legally an insurrection, you have to look at Title 18, Section 2383 of the U.S. Code. It’s a short, punchy law. It says anyone who "incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States" can be fined, jailed for ten years, and—this is the big one—barred from holding any office.
Here is the kicker: the Department of Justice (DOJ) almost never uses it.
Even with over 1,500 people charged in relation to the Capitol breach, the DOJ has largely steered clear of the specific "insurrection" charge. Why? Because it’s a nightmare to prove in court. Instead, prosecutors reached for Seditious Conspiracy.
📖 Related: Casualties Vietnam War US: The Raw Numbers and the Stories They Don't Tell You
You've probably heard of the Oath Keepers and the Proud Boys. Their leaders, like Stewart Rhodes and Enrique Tarrio, weren't just "protesting." They were convicted of seditious conspiracy because they planned to use force to oppose the execution of U.S. laws. Legally, sedition is about the plan to use force, while insurrection is the act of the uprising itself. It’s a fine line, but for a prosecutor, "conspiracy" is a much cleaner win than "insurrection."
What the Courts Have Actually Said
While the DOJ was cautious, the state courts weren't.
Back in late 2023 and early 2024, the Colorado Supreme Court and a few others went all-in. They ruled that the events of January 6th did, in fact, constitute an insurrection. Their logic was pretty straightforward: a large group of people used force to try and stop the peaceful transfer of power, which is the ultimate "authority of the United States."
Then the U.S. Supreme Court stepped in with Trump v. Anderson.
The Justices didn't actually spend much time arguing over whether it was a riot or an insurrection. They basically said, "Look, states don't have the power to kick a federal candidate off the ballot using the 14th Amendment." They shifted the responsibility to Congress. By doing that, they left the "insurrection" label in a sort of legal limbo. It wasn't a "no," but it definitely wasn't a "yes" that everyone had to follow.
👉 See also: Carlos De Castro Pretelt: The Army Vet Challenging Arlington's Status Quo
Why the Definition Matters for You
Words have consequences.
If Jan 6 was "just a riot," it puts the event in the same category as a local civil disturbance. If it was an "insurrection," it’s a foundational threat to the republic.
- The 14th Amendment: Section 3 specifically uses the word "insurrection." If an official is found to have engaged in one, they are technically disqualified from office.
- The Insurrection Act: This is a separate law (from 1807!) that allows a President to deploy the military domestically. We saw a lot of talk about this in early 2025 regarding how the government should respond to civil unrest.
- Sentencing: Whether a judge views a defendant as a "protester who went too far" or an "insurrectionist" drastically changes how many years they spend behind bars.
The 2025 Shift
Things took a massive turn following the 2024 election. Upon his inauguration in January 2025, President Trump issued a wave of pardons. For the vast majority of those involved—over 1,200 people—the legal debate over whether they were insurrectionists ended with a signature.
However, the pardons didn't apply to everyone. The "Seditious Conspiracy" convictions for those top-tier leaders largely stood (though some had sentences commuted). This created a weird two-tier reality. The government basically said, "The rank-and-file are forgiven, but the ones who planned the 'uprising' still carry the weight of the law."
Actionable Insights: How to Navigate the Noise
So, was Jan 6 an insurrection?
✨ Don't miss: Blanket Primary Explained: Why This Voting System Is So Controversial
The answer depends on who you ask and what book they're reading. If you're looking at the House Select Committee's Final Report, the answer is a resounding yes. If you're looking at the 2025 White House statements, the answer is that the term was a "weaponized narrative."
Here is how to look at it objectively:
1. Watch the charges, not the headlines. If someone is charged with "Parading, Demonstrating, or Picketing in a Capitol Building," they aren't being treated as an insurrectionist by the law. If they are charged with "Seditious Conspiracy," the government is saying they tried to subvert the state.
2. Contextualize the violence. Over 170 police officers were injured. That is a fact. Millions of dollars in damage occurred. That is a fact. Whether those facts equal an "insurrection" is a legal conclusion, but the underlying events are well-documented.
3. Follow the "Office Holding" cases. Even with the 2025 pardons, the question of whether someone "engaged in insurrection" can still pop up in civil suits or challenges to local office eligibility. These cases will likely be the only place where the term gets a workout in 2026 and beyond.
To understand the current state of these debates, you should monitor the U.S. Department of Justice's official database of Capitol Breach cases, which tracks the final status of every defendant. You can also review the full text of the 14th Amendment, Section 3, to see why this single word carries such massive weight for the future of American elections. The debate isn't over; it’s just moved from the streets to the archives.